more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
When someone pronounces for downward causation they are in opposition to science.
Gist of Idea
Science is opposed to downward causation
Source
J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 1.6 n54)
Book Ref
Ladyman,J/Ross,D: 'Every Thing Must Go' [OUP 2007], p.57
A Reaction
Downward causation is the key issue in any debate about whether minds exhibit excitingly 'emergent' properties that somehow put them outside the realm of normal physics. I take that to be nonsense, and I side with science here.
| 22741 | The incorporeal is not in the nature of body, and so could not emerge from it [Sext.Empiricus] |
| 5787 | There is non-event causation between mind and brain, as between a table and its solidity [Searle] |
| 2313 | Emergentism says there is no explanation for a supervenient property [Kim] |
| 2328 | The only mental property that might be emergent is that of qualia [Kim] |
| 4084 | Non-reductive physicalism seeks an explanation of supervenience, but emergentists accept it as basic [Crane] |
| 2405 | Perhaps consciousness is physically based, but not logically required by that base [Chalmers] |
| 6148 | Human organisms can exercise downward causation [Merricks] |
| 14911 | Science is opposed to downward causation [Ladyman/Ross] |
| 14556 | Strong emergence seems to imply top-down causation, originating in consciousness [Mumford/Anjum] |